Browsing by Author "Akl, Elie A."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Methodology for the American Society of Hematology VTE guidelines: current best practice, innovations, and experiences
    (2020) Wiercioch, Wojtek; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Akl, Elie A.; Kunkle, Robert; Alexander, Kendall E.; Cuker, Adam; Rajasekhar, Anita; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Anderson, David R.; Bates, Shannon M.; Cushman, Mary; Dahm, Philipp; Guyatt, Gordon; Iorio, Alfonso; Lim, Wendy; Lyman, Gary H.; Middeldorp, Saskia; Monagle, Paul; Mustafa, Reem A.; Neumann, Ignacio; Ortel, Thomas L.; Rochwerg, Bram; Santesso, Nancy; Vesely, Sara K.; Witt, Daniel M.; Schunemann, Holger J.
    Background: Methods for the development of clinical guidelines have advanced dramatically over the past 2 decades to strive for trustworthiness, transparency, user-friendliness, and rigor. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) have followed these advances, together with application of methodological innovations.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses
    (2023) Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian; Magwood, Olivia; Todhunter-Brown, Alex; Akl, Elie A.; Concannon, Thomas W.; Khabsa, Joanne; Morley, Richard; Schunemann, Holger; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Agarwal, Arnav; Antequera, Alba; Avey, Marc T.; Campbell, Pauline; Chang, Christine; Chang, Stephanie; Dans, Leonila; Dewidar, Omar; Ghersi, Davina; Graham, Ian D.; Hazlewood, Glen; Hilgart, Jennifer; Horsley, Tanya; John, Denny; Jull, Janet; Maxwell, Lara J.; McCutcheon, Chris; Munn, Zachary; Nonino, Francesco; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Parker, Roses; Pottie, Kevin; Rada, Gabriel; Riddle, Alison; Synnot, Anneliese; Ghogomu, Elizabeth Tanjong; Tomlinson, Eve; Toupin-April, Karine; Petkovic, Jennifer
    BackgroundInvolving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes.Our objectives are to:A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence synthesesB. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equityC. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence synthesesMethodsOur diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach:1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis.2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey.3. Consensus. The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners.4. Dissemination. We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.ConclusionOur international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid
    (ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2012) Akl, Elie A.; Sun, Xin; Busse, Jason W.; Johnston, Bradley C.; Briel, Matthias; Mulla, Sohail; You, John J.; Bassler, Dirk; Lamontagne, Francois; Vera, Claudio; Alshurafa, Mohamad; Katsios, Christina M.; Heels Ansdell, Diane; Zhou, Qi; Mills, Ed; Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Objective: To test the reliability and validity of specific instructions to classify blinding, when unclearly reported in randomized trials, as "probably done" or "probably not done."
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Using explicit thresholds for benefits and harms in partially contextualized GRADE guidelines. Pilot experience from a living COVID-19 guideline
    (2022) Neumann, Ignacio; Quinelen, Eduardo; Nahuelhual, Paula; Burdiles, Pamela; Celedon, Natalia; Cerda, Katherine; Herrera-Omegna, Paloma; Kraemer, Patricia; Cancino, Karen Dominguez; Valenzuela, Juan Pablo; Sepulveda, Dino; Morgano, Gian Paolo; Akl, Elie A.; Schunemann, Holger J.
    Objectives: Guideline panels must assess the magnitude of health benefits and harms to develop sensible recommendations. However, they rarely use explicit thresholds. In this paper we report on the piloting and the use thresholds for benefits and harms.Study Design and Setting: We piloted the use of thresholds in a Chilean COVID-19 living guideline. For each of the critical outcomes, we asked panelists to suggest values of the thresholds for large, moderate, small, or trivial or no effect. We collected this information through a survey and an on-line discussion.Results: Twelve panelists decided on thresholds for three critical outcomes (mortality, need for mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events). For all outcomes, an absolute risk reduction was considered larger with more than 50 events, moderate with less than 50 events, small with less than 25 events, and trivial with less than 10 events. Having these a priori thresholds in place significantly impacted on the development of recommendations. Conclusion: Explicit thresholds were a valuable addition to the judgment of the certainty in the evidence, to decide the direction and strength of the recommendation and to evaluate the need for update. We believe this is a line of research worth perusing.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.